With respects to DOS-C, if loading non GPL drivers really did violate
GPL, then it would have never been released under GPL. The comparison
of drivers to OSLib is an apples and oranges comparison. A DOS
loadable device driver is simply an executable that is loaded into
memory that follows a
Pat is correct.
A device driver is no different than any other executable, it just normally
gets loaded via CONFIG.SYS instead of AUTOEXEC.BAT or at the command line. If
a GPL OS only allowed GPL applications to run on it, it would be useless. In
the DOS world, almost no programs are GPL,
With respects to DOS-C, if loading non GPL drivers really did violate
GPL, then it would have never been released under GPL.
The GPL's text is huge and complicated, if you weren't aware of a
violation you might have released program X under GPL though it actually
violated the license
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Christian Maslochc...@bttr-software.de wrote:
*** SNIP ***
I wasn't aware Richard Stallman is a DOS internals expert. Please don't
argue by showing me people which don't believe in something, rather, stay
with actual facts about the kernel and device driver
I have simply stated our position.
I thought you wanted to discuss it since you even opened up a new thread
for it.
Regards,
Christian
--
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
Hi,
I have followed many, many discussions about iteractions of GPL, and I
have read the GPL inumerous times...
GPL is very clear that *derived* work has to be GPL. There is no
restriction in any way for *using with*
Linking with GPL software, or copying a small piece of GPL code is
